Get an Epic Experience with Premium
  • posted a message on Strategy in mono-green?
    Yeva, Nature's Herald can support a very tricksy deck. I've built her a couple times and she's always ended up playing a very flexible game. It's easy to play a traditional beatdown styled deck, but she can also support a much more controlling approach, and I've essentially comboed out with Recycle a few times. I do find some light elf tribal support to be helpful, because flashing in mana dorks makes them a lot more reliable for at least one use, but I mostly stick to the big dorks like Priest of Titania.

    She's also not essential for the deck to function in most builds despite offering a powerful effect. She's my favorite mono-G option so far, and I've played with and against a lot of them.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Cataclysm in EDH?
    It's an excellent card with the potential to backfire on you if you're careless. I had the most success with it in Tariel, who could rebuild the board alone after firing it off, so I could see Kemba operating kind of similarly. You should also be aware that some people are going to get annoyed with you for nuking lands, particularly in more casual circles.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] The Top 50 List (Week 2 - Lands)
    Khans release was September 26, C14 was November 7.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Cards that create value while you play more magic.
    Despite mostly seeing play as a combo piece, Tidespout Tyrant is great for this sort of deck.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] The Top 50 List (Week 2 - Lands)
    Are we forgoing the usual timing restriction of being out for a full set here? None of the C14 lands have been legal long enough to make the list otherwise.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Primer]] Mono-R Control with Jaya Ballard!
    I've been happy with Act on Impulse when I've seen it. I've got a very proactive control list with a focus on hitting land drops most of the time, so the drawbacks are pretty minor.

    I don't like Aggressive Mining here because I like having all of my mana. There are some very cost-intensive lines of play that come up on a regular basis in my deck (Batterskull plays, Comet Storm, Inferno + something else, etc) and Jaya already offers a way to turn excess lands into value. I also win a surprising number of games off of Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, and I don't really like cutting that off without a way to get rid of Mining. Other people may have more success with it, but it's not for my list.

    Torpor Orb is very build dependent, which should surprise no one. I could and probably should run it, but my answer to having a deck that's hostile to creatures is to not play many creatures. Playing higher impact etb effects is another good solution, and Torpor Orb obviously hurts that plan a bit.

    I've been slammed with school and holiday stuff, so I haven't been playing this much. I don't have a lot of interesting things to say at the moment because of that. I did start trading for some of the missing foils in my list a little more aggressively, which isn't really relevant to discussion of the deck but makes me happy. I've been considering scanning/taking pictures of the deck now that it's got a little more bling to it, so keep an eye out for that if it's something you're interested in.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Tabletalk: Your Opinion
    I just think it leads to a lot of unnecessary rewinding of the game and leaves some fuzzy areas as to how far back someone can rewind. I've played against people who got bent out of shape when they weren't paying close enough attention during a turn and tried to respond to something two players down the turn cycle, which is obnoxious. I know that's going beyond the scope of what you're talking about, but limiting the chances for people to argue for those things is worthwhile to me, especially when it just takes the word "combat" and a glance around the table to do it. I, and most of the people I play with, aren't really sticklers for exact timing and occasional missed things, but it gets annoying when people try and abuse that.

    I think the politics are more interesting when there's more tension about that type of play, too.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Tabletalk: Your Opinion
    Quote from ISBPathfinder »
    Shortcutting phases is a legal move. There is nothing against the rules with it. Anyone may deny you your shortcut it is on them to do so.
    It's only legal if everyone agrees to it, despite it being implicit in a lot of games. It's technically on the person who wants to shortcut the phase to bring it up (CR 716.1). If someone repeatedly shortcuts that step I typically ask them not to do so, particularly if I'm playing a list with a lot of instant speed interaction. I'd rather not rewind the game where I don't have to and I don't want to flash answers before I have to most of the time, so I hope that my opponents offer me the same courtesy.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Tabletalk: Your Opinion
    Quote from ISBPathfinder »
    Think of it this way,

    If I have an Eldrazi say Kozilek in play and I "Declare Attackers" at this point, every single opponent at the table should spot remove him if they can assuming they arent in a situation where they are sucking so much that they would obviously not be the target. If I shortcut into attacking Player C though, that means that the other individuals at the table have no reason to spend the Swords to Plowshares to stop the annihilate trigger. In this case, you save yourself from removal issues from the other players. If I for instance was one of the other players I would happily let someone else take the annihilate trigger and be forced to block / loose life before considering if I want to get rid of it.

    Spin it another way, lets say you have a good beater creature and the person that you would obviously want to attack has some means to tap creatures. If you "declare attackers" his response should be to tap it. I can get around this by shortcutting and attacking the next best target where I still get something accomplished rather than being tapped.

    It is not always to your best advantage to declare attackers. Shortcutting has a lot of valid advantages in multiplayer FFA.
    I take a lot more issue at those sorts of plays than I do at the one described in the first post. This feels a lot more like bending the rules. It may not always be to my advantage to declare combat, but I can live with that.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Tabletalk: Your Opinion
    Quote from ISBPathfinder »
    If someone else has a swords to plowshares for example they would use it after the declaration is declared. When you move to declaring attackers phase the primary response that needs to happen is tapping things so if nobody has any tapping or if you are not attacking the person with the visible tap option then you would shortcut to attacking someone else. People have the option of backtracking you and using the stack at this time but its a means to sort of cheat around tap issues.

    When you shortcut phases anyone can technically rewind you with something but it gives a reason not to tap you if you shortcut to attacking someone else where as if you declare your attackers its assumed that you are attacking the person with the tap option. It has pros and cons but if you want to swing elsewhere shortcutting is beneficial to do in a situation like this.
    Or you just draft a lot, or play in other formats where combat tricks aren't unheard of, or you have attack triggers, etc etc. I always declare combat because it's a good habit to have and takes a single extra word to do. It's a little more obvious that you should when there's some kind of tap effect on board already, but there are plenty of people who do so out of habit even when there's nothing obvious that could happen in response.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.